Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 31354(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedApril 17, 2025
DocketIndex No. 653795/2015
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 31354(U) (Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 31354(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Homapour v 3M Props., LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31354(U) April 17, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653795/2015 Judge: Joel M. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2025 04:41 PM INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1856 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X MEHRNAZ NANCY HOMAPOUR, BALANCE PROPERTY, INDEX NO. 653795/2015 LLC,JAM REALTY NYC LLC,UNITED CHELSEA, LLC,UNITED EAST, LLC,UNITED FIFTH, LLC,UNITED FLATIRON LLC,UNITED GREENWICH, LLC,UNITED MOTION DATE 10/04/2024 HAY, LLC,UNITED NATIONWIDE REALTY LLC,UNITED PRIME BROADWAY, LLC,UNITED PRIME LLC,UNITED MOTION SEQ. NO. 020 SEED LLC,UNITED SQUARE LLC,UNITED VILLAGE, LLC,UNITED WEST, LLC, DECISION + ORDER ON Plaintiffs, MOTION

-v- 3M PROPERTIES, LLC,BALANCE PROPERTY, LLC,JAM REALTY NYC LLC,UNITED CHELSEA, LLC,UNITED EAST, LLC,UNITED FIFTH, LLC,UNITED FLATIRON LLC,UNITED GREENWICH, LLC,UNITED HAY, LLC,UNITED NATIONWIDE REALTY LLC,UNITED PRIME BROADWAY, LLC,UNITED PRIME LLC,UNITED SEED LLC,UNITED SQUARE LLC,UNITED VILLAGE, LLC,UNITED WEST, LLC,JACOB NY HOLDINGS LLC,JACOB NY HOLDINGS LTD., 172 MULBERRY REALTY LLC,1007 LEX AVE LLC,69 CLINTON NPG LLC,163 CHRYSTIE REALTY LLC,427 EAST 77TH STREET LLC,360 EAST 50TH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC,356 EAST 50TH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC,ORANGE & BLUE LLC,ALEXANDER SELIGSON, SELIGSON ROTHMAN & ROTHMAN, GERARDINE T. DELLARATTA, AS EXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF HENRY DELLARATTA, NATALIE HAROUNIAN, MEHRNOSH PIROOZIAN, JACOB HAROUNIAN, MARK HAROUNIAN, JOHN DOES 1-100,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 020) 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, 1442, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1473 were read on this motion to PRECLUDE .

653795/2015 HOMAPOUR, MEHRNAZ NANCY vs. 3M PROPERTIES, LLC Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 020

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2025 04:41 PM INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1856 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2025

The Harounian Defendants1 move to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff Mehrnaz

Homapour’s forensic accounting expert, Jack Gutierrez. For the reasons set forth below, the

Harounian Defendants’ motion is denied.

Expert testimony is admissible where it is helpful to the trier of fact, based on facts in the

record or of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, and grounded in a reliable

methodology that is generally accepted within the expert’s professional discipline (see Parker v

Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 446 [2006]; Hambsch v NYC Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726

[1984]). New York courts follow a liberal standard for admissibility, generally (though not

always) preferring to allow the fact finder to evaluate the strength of expert testimony through

cross-examination rather than excluding it outright: “[a]ny defects in the opinions of plaintiff’s

experts or the foundation on which those opinions were based . . . [go] to the weight to be

accorded that evidence by the trier of fact, not to its admissibility in the first instance” (Sadek v

Wesley, 27 NY3d 982, 983 [2016]; see Adamy v Ziriakus, 92 NY2d 396, 402-03 [1998]).

The Harounian Defendants’ primary challenge to Mr. Gutierrez’s stems from his alleged

over-reliance on his associates. “[A]n expert may rely on assistants or the opinions of other

experts in formulating their own expert opinions” (Faulkner v Arista Recs. LLC, 46 F Supp 3d

365, 385 [SD NY 2014]). However, the expert must supervise, direct, or participate in that

work: “[t]he expert witness must in the end be giving his own opinion. He cannot simply be a

1 The “Harounian Defendants” collectively include: (a) Mark Harounian (“Mark”); (b) 3M Properties LLC, Balance Property LLC, JAM Realty NYC LLC, United Chelsea LLC, United East LLC, United Fifth LLC, United Flatiron LLC, United Greenwich LLC, United Hay LLC, United Nationwide Realty LLC, United Prime Broadway LLC, United Prime LLC, United Seed LLC, United Square LLC, United Village LLC, and United West LLC (collectively, the “Family LLCs”); and (c) 172 Mulberry Realty LLC, 1007 Lex Ave LLC, 163 Chrystie LLC, Jacob NY Holdings LLC, and Jacob NY Holdings Ltd. (collectively, the “Harounian LLCs”).

653795/2015 HOMAPOUR, MEHRNAZ NANCY vs. 3M PROPERTIES, LLC Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 020

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2025 04:41 PM INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1856 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2025

conduit for the opinion of an unproduced expert” (Malletier v Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 525 F

Supp 2d 558, 664 [SD NY 2007]; see Pacific Life Ins. Co. v Bank of NY Mellon, 571 F Supp 3d

106, 115 [SD NY 2021]).

Plaintiff retained Mr. Gutierrez, a Certified Public Accountant licensed in New York and

Florida, to perform a forensic accounting analysis in connection with this litigation in early 2021.

Gutierrez testified that although he signed the expert report submitted in this case, portions of the

report—specifically those detailing the entities, ownership structures, and methodologies—were

co-authored with his associate, Stefano D’Urso (NYSCEF 1469 [Gutierrez Deposition

Transcript] at 23:13-24:19). Mr. D’Urso, along with another associate, Joseph Gangemi,

conducted the primary review of more than 4,000 transactions, including invoices, checks, and

supporting documents (id.). Mr. Gutierrez testified that he did not personally review the original

transaction records, and instead reviewed the work completed by his staff (id. at 28:2-4).

Nevertheless, Mr. Gutierrez stated that he supervised and directed the associates’ work, meeting

with them periodically to assess their progress, discuss their findings, and determine whether

further analysis was warranted (id. at 26:19-27:9). Mr. Gutierrez retained final decision-making

authority over the scope and sufficiency of the review and found no errors in the associates’

work (id. at 27:10-18). Though the degree of Mr. Gutierrez’s involvement in analyzing the

transactions at issue is a valid subject to raise on cross examination, and his deposition testimony

may limit the permissible scope of his testimony at trial, his testimony should not be precluded

entirely (though the Court may revisit this issue depending on the specific testimony offered at

trial).

The Harounian Defendants also take issue with Mr. Gutierrez listing certain transactions

in his report as “likely fraudulent” or “partially fraudulent,” arguing that such categorizations

653795/2015 HOMAPOUR, MEHRNAZ NANCY vs. 3M PROPERTIES, LLC Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 020

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2025 04:41 PM INDEX NO. 653795/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1856 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2025

constitute impermissible legal conclusions. “While an expert ‘may opine on an issue of fact

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.
525 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.
857 N.E.2d 1114 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
Adamy v. Ziriakus
704 N.E.2d 216 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
Sadek v. Wesley
51 N.E.3d 553 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
Hambsch v. New York City Transit Authority
469 N.E.2d 516 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 31354(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homapour-v-3m-props-llc-nysupctnewyork-2025.